silverage12c

On 9/25/2022 at 1:20 AM, Cat-Man_America said:

I'm unsure about the pedigree status, but I know a seizure inducing avatar when I see one! 

Seriously, it might be worth looking through CGC's recognized pedigrees on Matt's old webpage (link below). Identifying with just a "C" is tough without other distributer markings present, but this may help...

http://www.comicpedigrees.com

Thank you! I had browsed that site pretty thoroughly, and it rocks. But, I'm still not sure about this book with the "C". I've read that some Edgar Church copies from 1945 and later may have had just a simple "M" or "C" initial without any date code. And, this letter "C" resembles that on some Ohio copies I've looked up. But, you're right --- this sole letter C is not much to go on. No matter, I was really pleased to find this book in a collection I bought recently, and it's got a forever home in my PC now. I'm tempted to submit for grading just to see whether the pros make any note of the pencil mark or not.

Evening all —- reaching out to those of you more knowledgeable in GA pedigrees than myself. (I know next to nothing, haha).

Is this pencil “C” a known pedigree marking? The book is Green Mask #4, Vol. 2, 1947. 
 

Thanks in advance, I appreciate it!

I have this at a 4.0. It's an odd copy --- the main defects showing are clear, and yet the book as a whole is otherwise really nice, lies flat, etc. Funny that the defects are so isolated. Thanks for sharing

I was scrolling, scrolling, thinking 7.0 ... and then I got to that darn bottom-left corner, too bad about that! These old squarebounds are so tough with all the spine splits. I have this at a 4.5. (Overstreet standards allow up to a 1/2" spine split in a 5.0, but your split looks a little longer, while otherwise very nice). Thanks for sharing  

I'm at a 7.0 here. Looks a LOT like a copy I owned at one time, except mine had that MVS missing. Wish I still had it! Thanks for sharing

Accumulation of spine creases, and the slight back cover soiling, put this at a 6.5, in my opinion. (Note: In case you weren't familiar with the tiny "tears" you've shown near the bottom of several pages, these were a normal by-product of the printing and binding process back then. They don't harm this grade whatsoever, though they might prevent an otherwise "perfect" copy out of contention for a 9.9 or 10 grade).
Nice copy, thanks for sharing!

7.0, thanks for sharing!
(Interesting how the staples are misaligned, but it didn't really cause a miswrap or crookedness to the cover.)

8.0

I'm at 7.5 on this one. Thanks for sharing!

6.0, very nice

Yep. 9.0/9.2, thanks for sharing!

Agree with 7.5, very nice!

Those added pics helped a bunch! I'd put this at a 5.5 or maybe 6.0. Could be helped with a clean/press. But, those color-breaking creases will prevent it grading much higher. Thanks for sharing!

Yep, I have this at 5.0, mainly due to that long diagonal crease, and the slight edge wear and spine creases in general. Thanks for sharing!

6.5, nice copy!

4.5, thanks for sharing!

8.5, very nice! Thanks for sharing

I have this higher than others have posted so far. It's a really NICE, clean copy. Honestly, I see nothing keeping this from a 8.5 minimum, maybe even a 9.0. I don't think there's any need for pressing on this copy, any improvement would be negligible, as it already seems very flat, glossy, etc. Nice copy!!

Those little perforation tears won't impact grade at all, they're a very common result of the binding process. But, the sun shadow is hard for me to get past. I may be off-base, but I have this at 8.0 max due to the shadow and the bottom staple issue. Thanks for sharing!

Easily an 8.0, imho. Very nice copy, thanks for sharing!

The spine ticks are so tiny, they don't bother me too much  I'll say 7.0, thanks for sharing!

On 4/5/2022 at 1:05 AM, ComicMarty said:

I just opened the book to confirm and right there at the bottom of page 1

”This is a reprint of previously published material”

Guy I got it from said nothing about a reprint, just that it was “the Whitman variant” 😒

So sounds like I definitely overpaid, which is annoying but guess that’s part of collecting ☹️

Cool cover though, so that’s something 

For a little more context on this: Whitman is a publisher that would reprint a lot of books during that era, mostly Marvel and DC titles. These Whitman versions would often be sold in poly-bagged sets of 3 or 4 comics, sold in department stores, convenience stores, etc. Something like $0.99 for 3 or 4 comics, which was a great deal for a kid needing to stretch their allowance  (See pic attached here). I think it's more accurate to call them reprints than "variants", but the seller isn't wrong about that ... they are variants.
While not as valuable as the 1st printings, a lot of completists like to collect one copy of EVERY variant, so they do have a bit of value.

I'd say yours is about a 6.0, thanks for sharing!

Very odd that the back cover falls 1/4" shy of the page edges, and yet there doesn't seem to be any cover over-hang on the front? Hard to say what CGC would assign here, but I'd say it's a 6.0. Thanks for sharing!

I'm in